Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DOE contractors”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Integrated Issues and Risk Management: A Theoretical Framework Overview

The contractor requirements document for DOE O 226.1B, Implementation of Department of Energy Oversight Policy, requires DOE/NNSA contractors to establish an assurance system that includes, among other things, “Rigorous, risk-informed, and credible self-assessment and feedback and improvement activities. Assessment programs must be risk-informed, formally described and documented, and appropriately cover potentially high consequence activities” and “Contains an issues management process that is capable of categorizing the significance of findings based on risk and priority and other appropriate factors….” However, the term “risk-informed” is not defined in this or any other DOE order, and no formal guidance on how to integrate the two concepts currently exists. The Risk Management Guide for Defense Programs released by NA-18, Office of Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I), states it is “a framework and general guidance to program office personnel on the effective management of program risks and issues”, however it then defines issues as “events with 100% likelihood of affecting program objectives” and states “unless specified otherwise, the term “risk” will also serve to represent issues for the remainder of this plan,” severally limiting its ability to provide adequate guidance on this topic. Outside of DOE scope, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S. NRC) imposes similar requirements. ASME NQA-1-2015 Requirement 16 states “Conditions adverse to quality shall be identified promptly and corrected as soon as practicable. In the case of a significant condition adverse to quality, the cause of the condition shall be determined, and corrective action taken to preclude recurrence. The identification, cause, and corrective action for significant conditions adverse to quality shall be documented and reported to appropriate levels of management. Completion of corrective actions shall be verified”. The purpose of this document is to provide a best-in-class framework for an integrated risk and issues management process. This process would provide a robust feedback loop between risk management and issues management to: Enhance risk identification and characterization, use risk handling principles to improve corrective action planning, and ensure regulatory compliance.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Building a Collaborative Relationship between Contractor and Oversight at SRPPF

The success of Department of Energy (DOE) projects is dependent on a functional, healthy, and collaborative relationship between the contractor and the federal oversight. A healthy relationship marked by a collaborative mindset between these two groups, can facilitate better operational safety, operational efficiency, and regulatory compliance. This paper will explore aspects of such a relationship, the roles and responsibilities of the contractor and federal oversight, the present and historical relationships in the DOE complex, and best practices considered by the contractor and federal oversight used at the Savannah River Plutonium Processing Facility (SRPPF) at the Savannah River Site (SRS). Due to the current design phase of the SRPPF, the contractor and federal oversight have a unique opportunity to begin establishing a strong relationship early in the project’s life. As a result of this dynamic, the two groups have already demonstrated their ability to successfully respond to ongoing design issues. In general, a strong criticality safety program is beginning to mature for the SRPPF alongside a developing criticality safety federal oversight group. This paper will discuss the various factors that have brought about this collaborative relationship. Lastly, a case study will be incorporated into this paper demonstrating the ability of the SRPPF contractor and federal oversight to overcome challenges relating to the SRPPF project. This case study may guide groups around the DOE Complex to create better, more functional relationships between the two parties. The case study will provide a detailed description of the issue and parties involved, highlight the factors that allowed the group to overcome the challenge via effective collaboration, and the outcome of the event. Increasing collaboration may benefit the complex, as a whole, in order to meet the mission demands of the DOE.

collaboration↗
DOE OSTI2020

D and D Research on KM-IT Platform - 20494

The Knowledge Management Information Tool (KM-IT) is a web-based system developed to maintain and preserve the Department of Energy's (DoE's) knowledge base. The system was developed by Florida International University's Applied Research Center (FIU-ARC) with the support of the D and D community including the DOE Office of Environmental Management, and with the collaboration and support of the DoE's Energy Facility Contractors Group (EFCOG) and the former ALARA Centers at Hanford and Savannah. The KM-IT system is a community driven system tailored to serve the technical issues faced by the workforce across the DOE Complex. This KM-IT web-based interactive system is operational and available for use at www.dndkm.org and is currently comprised of the following modules: Web Crawler, Hotline, Technology, Hanford's ALARA Center Reports, Specialist Directory, Lessons Learned, Best Practices, Video/Picture Library, Vendors and Industry News. The Web Crawler dynamically searches through the KM-IT repository as well as the web and displays search results based on the search criteria. The Hotline allows registered users to post questions/problems related to D and D and to receive solutions from a subject-matter specialist. The Technology module serves as repository of D and D technologies and contains technology/ demonstration fact sheets and vendor information. D and D community members can add Lessons Learned, Best Practices, and Pictures/Videos to the D and D repository, after a formal approval process. The Vendor module provides a directory of commercial vendors who provide D and D related technologies, supplies, and services. KM-IT makes an excellent use of the knowledge that exists within the D and D community by allowing D and D project managers around the DOE complex to collaborate by sharing innovative ideas, past experiences, and practices and by maintaining a directory of subject matter specialists. FIU has developed the dedicated module on KM-IT platform to publish D and D research being performed at FIU. This module highlights current EM research efforts and activities in support of D and D being performed at FIU/SRNL associated with fixatives and intumescent products. FIU will expand this module to include the recent and current D and D research being performed across multiple DOE EM sites, national labs and universities. FIU will collaborate with SRNL, INL, ANL and other universities to explore and publish D and D research activities on KM-IT. As a result, the user community will have a centralized location to review new D and D related research across the DOE EM complex. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Accelerating Nuclear Facility Mission Completion Through an Improved Chemical Hazard Control Strategy - 20460

Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 10 CFR 830, Nuclear Safety Management [1], explicitly identifies hazardous materials in addition to radioactive materials when establishing the scope of materials that must be evaluated in Hazard Category (HC) 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. This inclusion has led to a near decade-long progression of more and more rigorous application of chemical hazard controls in these facilities. The progressive addition of more rigorous chemical hazard controls has occurred across the Department of Energy (DOE) Complex, having been driven by contractors and regulators alike. However, chemical hazards in other DOE facilities have been, and continue to be, controlled using traditional industrial safety centered strategies. Thus, identical chemical hazards are controlled using dramatically different approaches based solely on the facility type. Not only are the controls different, the analysis and derivation rigor and requirements are also significantly different. In particular, chemical control derivation and application in non-nuclear facilities are much less onerous than the comprehensive hazard analysis process used in nuclear facilities, even in circumstances in which chemicals are not initiators to, or do not exacerbate a nuclear event. While the derivation and control approaches used in these two types of facilities are disparate, the safety results are similarly effective based on a review of reported chemical events from 2014 through 2018. While both approaches achieve comparable safety outcomes, the approach used in nuclear facilities results in significantly greater preparation costs and implementation costs. Furthermore, the problem with the differing approach is not relegated to the control preparation and implementation burden. The operational impact of potentially unnecessary controls slows mission completion without a corresponding increase in safety, not to mention the dilution of the importance of Technical Safety Requirements. The proposed solution must first include a critical and thorough examination of DOE Complex and top-tier chemical industry chemical hazard control practices, coupled with a similar examination of the driving facility regulatory requirements. Results from the examination can then be used to fuel a bold departure from current chemical control practices in Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facilities. Development of an improved and consistent chemical hazard control process would follow, one that continues to ensure safety while accelerating mission completion and significantly reducing the burden associated with chemical hazard control development and implementation. The improved process must establish a hierarchy where radiological hazards are addressed using safety class and safety significant controls and chemical hazards are addressed using overarching safety management programs (with limited unique exceptions). The improved Hazard Category 1,2, and 3 nuclear facility chemical hazard control strategy, while compliant with 10 CFR 830 [1], would be founded on the requirements in 10 CFR 851, Worker Safety and Health Program [2], and the complementary DOE O 151.1D, Comprehensive Emergency Management System [3]. In this way, the Hazard Category 1, 2, and 3 nuclear facility chemical hazard control strategy would, wherever appropriate, be the same process used at other DOE Complex facilities. Ultimately, the improved process will maintain safety and significantly reduce costs and life cycle risk through faster mission completion. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Nitrate and Nitrite at Hanford – From Tanks to Natural Attenuation

Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) contracted Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in support of their maturation testing and analysis to develop and deploy an ambient temperature solidification/stabilization process for low-activity waste (LAW) (referred to as “grout” in this report). The intent of this effort is to support a sample-and-send regulatory and processing strategy in the Hanford 200 West Area, specifically considering grout waste forms disposal at Hanford in the Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). Currently the disposal of grouted LAW is not an option because the IDF is not permitted to receive this waste form. The material presented in this report is intended to help inform the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the site operating contractors, regulatory agencies, and stakeholders of the future implications of IDF disposal of a grouted LAW waste form, specifically for the behavior of nitrate (NO 3 - ) and nitrite (NO 2 - ) at the Hanford. The only calculation of nitrate release from a hypothetical grouted LAW inventory in the IDF showed that the overall release was slightly above the compliance limit of 45 mg/L nitrate and 3.32 mg/L nitrate after 1000 years (Asmussen et al. 2019). As such, uncertainty around the impact of nitrate and nitrite release from the IDF was identified in the recent National Academies of Sciences study of Hanford supplemental LAW by both the national laboratory team and Hanford stakeholders (Bates et al. 2023). However, these calculations (and others for the IDF involving secondary waste grout) may be conservative as no nitrate and nitrite retention in the grout waste form was assumed, nor any attenuation in the subsurface. There is evidence from the literature of processes that can attenuate nitrate migration both in the waste form and in the Hanford subsurface. If found to be technically defensible and likely to occur in the IDF and associated subsurface, then these processes should be included in modeling of the IDF to represent the behavior of nitrate and nitrite more accurately. Doing so would remove unnecessary conservatism in the modeling projections and reduce the uncertainty in assessments of facility compliance of a grouted LAW waste form in the IDF.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Special Analyses for the Hanford Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment - 20102

In 2014, the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of River Protection and its contractors began to develop a performance assessment for the near-surface disposal of low-level and mixed low-level waste at the Hanford Site's Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF). The IDF is a doubly-lined landfill that was constructed between 2004 and 2006 to be the disposal facility for the vitrified low-activity waste that will be produced at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). IDF is also expected to receive solid secondary waste produced at the WTP and other solid wastes from site activities. The IDF has been in a preoperational state awaiting authorization from DOE and a RCRA permit modification from the State of Washington Department of Ecology to receive waste. Both the Disposal Authorization Statement and permit modification require a performance assessment demonstrating that the system of engineered and natural features will limit releases of radionuclides and hazardous chemicals from the IDF and be protective of human health and the environment. The simulated duration is 10,000 years. Based on the analyses presented in the 2017 Integrated Disposal Facility Performance Assessment, DOE issued a conditional Operating Disposal Authorization Statement for the IDF in June 2018. The long-term performance of the IDF to be protective of human health and the environment was evaluated under the requirements of DOE Order 435.1, Radioactive Waste Management. Computer simulations were performed to evaluate whether or not the IDF would comply with DOE requirements. In the time that has passed since the performance assessment was approved by DOE, new information has been discovered that had not been considered in the performance assessment. Since this new information has not been evaluated, the potential impact of the changes have not been taken into consideration in DoE's disposal authorization. DOE and its contractors follow a change control process to screen and, when necessary, evaluate new information that could potentially impact the conclusions of the completed performance assessment. This paper will describe the change control process and provide two examples of evaluations performed following the change control process. The first example evaluates a new waste form for liquid secondary waste that was not evaluated in the performance assessment. In the performance assessment, liquid secondary waste was assumed to be solidified with grout. A new recommendation to dispose of the liquid secondary waste after drying it to a powder was evaluated. The second example evaluates inventory implications from changes to the flow sheet that estimates the feed composition to the low-activity waste vitrification facility. The changes result in higher strontium concentrations in the vitrified waste stream. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Acquisition and Implementation of a Comprehensive Environmental Permits Linking Tool at Savannah River Site - 20234

Historically, Savannah River Nuclear Solutions LLC (SRNS) tracked environmental regulatory commitments and the requirements from hundreds of permits at the Savannah River Site (SRS) using several separate methods, making integrated compliance assurance cumbersome and labor-intensive. When SRNS experienced an increase in environmental issues in 2017, SRNS management and U.S. Department of Energy - Savannah River (DOE-SR) management decided a single, proactive approach was needed to capture environmental permit information (including regulations, Consent Orders, DOE Orders, and any other state or federally issued statement of requirements), track the tasks necessary to ensure compliance with these requirements, and thereby mitigate the risk of noncompliance. SRNS developed a list of mandatory objectives that the tool must meet to function as a Comprehensive Environmental Permits Linking Tool (CEPLT). A key requirement was the ability to map Site permits to their governed locations and display the associated requirements at the compliance point (e.g., outfall, stack, waste unit, etc.). Several options included modifying existing onsite resources, building a custom onsite solution, purchasing an off-the-shelf solution, and contracting an offsite developer to build a custom solution. SRNS concluded an off-the-shelf solution with configuration and customization options would provide the flexibility to fit the unique needs of Savannah River Site (SRS) while taking advantage of industry-tested software and providing a reduced deployment timeline. SRNS chose Gensuite{sup R} a, a cloud-based solution that offers numerous a la carte applications in the environmental, health, and safety arenas, as the best candidate. SRNS selected three (3) integrated applications (Compliance Calendar, Permit Manager, and Mapper) to function as the CEPLT. The Compliance Calendar module allows for creation and tracking of regulatory commitment tasks assigned to responsible environmental professionals. Permit Manager organizes permits and other requirement documents, linking the commitments in each to Compliance Calendar tasks and/or implementing procedures. Mapper provides GIS capability for mapping the data from the other two modules to their physical onsite locations. The CEPLT was configured to allow for other SRS Site Tenants to eventually utilize the applications. Additionally, DOE-SR uses the CEPLT to provide an overview of contractor environmental compliance activities and to organize DOE-specific documents and tasks. The CEPLT fulfilled the requirement of meeting current compliance needs as well as providing the ability to grow as new organizations are incorporated and functionality is expanded. SRNS now uses the CEPLT to more effectively manage permit requirements, improve knowledge transfer, and increase the Site's overall protection of the environment, the Site worker, and the public. Possible future uses of the system include integration of mobile applications for timely communication of potential non-compliant conditions and DOE complex-wide deployment allowing for enhanced DOE site and Head Quarters oversight. Implementation of CEPLT will result in cost savings, both in terms of dollars and man-hours. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

GHEP WIBT (Guidelines for Home Energy Professionals Weatherization Installer Badges Toolkit) [SWR-20-69]

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) are collaborating with the home energy retrofit industry to support the development of skilled workers. The Installer Badges Toolkit provides a flexible, customizable, and voluntary approach to training and skills recognition for WAP implementers, utility programs, private-sector workers, and contractors. In Fiscal Year 2018, DOE, along with the Crew Leader scheme committee, determined the Retrofit Installer Technician (RIT) Job Task Analysis (JTA) could be eliminated and its tasks inserted in the Crew Leader JTA. The RIT tasks became the basis of the Installer Badges. The Badges Toolkit was updated in 2020 to add licensing and copyright agreements. Users must cite the copyright information when using or distributing copies of the Badges Toolkit in any way. The technical content has remained unchanged from previous versions of the Badges Toolkit. The Toolkit for home retrofits consists of 25 Badges, each representing different energy efficiency tasks that an installer could perform on a home. Each Badge defines the desired outcome, criteria to verify, applicable material requirements, and references to Standard Work Specifications (SWS) or other relevant standards. The Badges provide a consistent approach to training by ensuring that installers in different regions are learning the same skills nationwide. Organizations can also customize the Toolkit by choosing only those Badges that are relevant to their program. The Badges Toolkit includes five pieces: "How to Use the Badges Toolkit" provides a brief overview of how a Grantee, Subgrantee, or training provider may approach using the toolkit. The "Badges Toolkit: Worksheet" includes what to consider when determining whether and how to best incorporate the Badges into a weatherization assistance program. The "Crew Leader Job Task Analysis Spreadsheet" indicates how the Badges align with specific areas of the JTA. The "Installer Badges Passport" features separate pages for each Badge, which include places for the installer and the supervisor/trainer to record the number of times a task has been successfully completed. The "Installer Badges Verification Criteria" includes sample inspection checklists for each Badge. These can be modified as needed based on approved variance requests or more stringent requirements. They also provide a basis for consistent inspections and awarding of Badges. Note: All elements of the Badges Toolkit are designed for use by potential program implementers. They are not off-the-shelf products intended for immediate deployment. Program implementers must review and modify as needed, revise verification criteria to match local requirements, complete worksheets, and otherwise define the parameters of their own badging program.

Desai, Jal↗
DOE OSTI2020

Site Environmental Report for Sandia National Laboratories California (2019)

Sandia National Laboratories, California (SNL/CA) is a Department of Energy (DOE) facility. The management and operations of the facility are under a contract with the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). On May 1, 2017, the name of the management and operating contractor changed from Sandia Corporation to National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS). The DOE, NNSA, Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at the site. DOE and its management and operating contractor for Sandia are committed to safeguarding environmental protection, compliance, and sustainability and to ensuring the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data presented in this Annual Site Environmental Report. This Site Environmental Report for 2019 was prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, S afro and Health &potting (DOE 2012). The report provides a summary of environmental monitoring information and compliance activities that occurred at SNL/CA during calendar year 2019, unless noted otherwise. General site and environmental program information is also included.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Site Environmental Report for 2020, Sandia National Laboratories, California

Sandia National Laboratories, California (SNL/CA) is a Department of Energy (DOE) facility. The management and operations of the facility are under a contract with the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). On May 1, 2017, the name of the management and operating contractor changed from Sandia Corporation to National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC (NTESS). The DOE, NNSA, Sandia Field Office administers the contract and oversees contractor operations at the site. DOE and its management and operating contractor for Sandia are committed to safeguarding environmental protection, compliance, and sustainability and to ensuring the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data presented in this Annual Site Environmental Report. This Site Environmental Report for 2020 was prepared in accordance with DOE Order 231.1B, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting (DOE 2012). The report provides a summary of environmental monitoring information and compliance activities that occurred at SNL/CA during calendar year 2020, unless noted otherwise. General site and environmental program information is also included.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

LLNL DOE Order 420.2 D Implementation Plan

This plan will serve as the basis for the ongoing implementation of DOE O 420.2D to contractor requirements applicable to the use of Radiation Generating Devices (RGDs) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL).

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Technology and Innovation Roadmap

This Technology and Innovation Roadmap outlines the Hanford Tank Waste Operations & Closure, LLC (H2C) strategic approach for advancing the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment Mission (HTWTM) through technology development. Our focus is on addressing technology needs that address risks, enhance efficiency, ensure worker safety, and uphold environmental standards. This Roadmap identifies key technology initiatives essential for the successful completion of the Hanford Site tank waste cleanup. Updated annually, it incorporates insights from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the Integrated Tank Disposition Contractor (ITDC) H2C, recognized national lab experts, and fieldwork specialists. The Roadmap includes approximately 100 technology elements, each detailed in Technology Element Description Summaries (TEDS) and summarized in catalog sheets. These elements are crucial for aligning technology development activities with mission objectives across the HTWTM. With the initiation of the Direct-Feed Low-Activity Waste (DFLAW) program and the operation of the Tank Side Cesium Removal (TSCR) system, our focus now shifts to the support of scaled up production in East Area; applying similar and exploring new treatment alternatives to West Area Tank Waste; and advancing retrieval, delivery and treatment technologies for waste managed as high-level waste (HLW) across the Hanford tank farms. This transition is reflected in the technology and maturation (TM&E) charts, which highlight the evolving technology priorities. This document serves as a guide for navigating the challenges and opportunities in technology development at the Hanford Site.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Panel Session 94: US DOE Procurement Opportunities and End-State Contracting Model Status

This panel focused on DoE's procurement implementation strategy and planned activities for its first-tier contractors (Tier 1 procurements). This panel also focused on the implementation status of DoE's End State Contracting Model, which uses a single-award ID/IQ approach to give DOE flexibility to better define discrete scopes of work for site closure or end states. The panelists provided their prospective on progress toward the implementation of this new approach, lessons learned and the path forward for upcoming opportunities utilizing this contracting model. Panelists with presentations: EFCOG (Billy Morrison); DOE Procurement Opportunities - 4 Ways for Small Business Participation (Anne Marie Bird); US DOE Procurement and Contracting Opportunities (Aaron Deckard)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

TA55-PMDS Programmatic Maintenance [Slides]

DOE Order 433.1B states: “The contractor must maintain real property assets in a manner that promotes operational safety, worker health, environmental compliance, property preservation and cost-effectiveness while meeting the program mission”. P950 Conduct of Maintenance serves as LANL’s Nuclear Maintenance Management Program specific to M/L 1 and M/L 2 SSC. PA-AP-01108 Maintenance Requirements for Programmatic Equipment defines the process for determining maintenance requirements, as defined in a maintenance plan, for all programmatic equipment owned by the Associate Directorate for Plutonium Science and Manufacturing (ADPSM) utilizing a formal, graded approach to maximize the reliability of permanently-installed programmatic equipment that does not perform a safety function. It bridges the gap between P950 and program equipment.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2021

2020 Annual Site Environmental Report for Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico

Sandia National Laboratories, hereinafter referred to as Sandia, is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. This Annual Site Environmental Report was prepared in accordance with and as required by DOE O 231.1B, Admin Change 1, Environment, Safety and Health Reporting , and is approved for public release. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its management and operating contractor for Sandia are committed to safeguarding the environment, continually assessing sustainability practices, and ensuring the validity and accuracy of the monitoring data presented here. This report summarizes the environmental protection, restoration, and monitoring programs in place for Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico (SNL/NM), during calendar year 2020.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Floating Offshore Wind U.S. Manufacturing and Commercialization: Cooperative Research and Development (Final Report)

The American-Made FLoating Offshore Wind ReadINess (FLOWIN) Prize provides the Participant with a voucher technical support provided by DOE national laboratories, such as the Contractor. The primary goals include providing insights for the INO/INOC floating offshore wind platform on 1) an evaluation the workforce requirements for the full-scale production and deployment; and 2) an assessment of domestic supplier capabilities for the main components US regional and national supply chain constraints and gaps.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

CITRC Cable Info

Working on a DOE project with university sub-contractors to build power grid simulations. We need the cable size and spacing to build accurate models. Other related documents on the physical set up and electrical components have been released, INL/MIS-20-59900 and INL/MIS-20-60003.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗